A Mother v A Local Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Baker,Mrs Justice Roberts,Lord Justice McCombe |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWCA Civ 1344 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B4/2019/3003 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 October 2020 |
[2020] EWCA Civ 1344
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT AT WATFORD
HH Judge Vavrecka
WD18C00729
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice McCombe
Lord Justice Baker
and
Mrs Justice Roberts
Case No: B4/2019/3003
In the Matter of the Children Act 1989
And in the Matter of T and J (Children)
Ian Peddie QC and Rachel Temple (instructed by All Family Matters) for the Appellant
Hannah Markham QC and Laura Williams (instructed by Local Authority Solicitor) for the First Respondent
Penny Howe QC and Kayleigh Long (instructed by Hepburn Delaney) for the Sixth Respondent
The Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents were not present nor represented
Hearing dates: 5 and 6 October 2020
Approved Judgment
This is an appeal brought by a mother against findings made in care proceedings concerning her two sons, T, now aged rising seven, and J, now four.
The background can be summarised briefly. The two boys have different fathers (the second and third respondents to this appeal, who have played no part in the hearing before us). The mother alleged that in both relationships she was the victim of domestic violence. Following the breakdown of her relationship with J's father, there were proceedings under the Children Act 1989 as a result of which a child arrangements order was made that J should live with his mother and have supervised contact with his father.
In early 2018, the family came to the attention of social services following concerns about T's behaviour reported by the health visitor. In April 2018, the mother started a relationship with another man, KF, who himself has a child aged six by another relationship. At that point, T was aged five and J aged 18 months.
On 31 May 2018, a health visitor noted marks on J's body and as a result he was examined by a GP. Over the course of the following four weeks, J was examined by doctors on several occasions when various bruises and marks were noted on his body. At one stage, it was thought that he was suffering from ringworm or impetigo. After each examination, however, J was allowed to return home. On 22 June, J was again seen at hospital after the mother had sent a photograph of bruises and other marks on his body to the GP. On admission to hospital, a range of further bruises and marks was seen on his body, including in the genital area. Once again, J was allowed home. A further medical examination took place a week later on 29 June when further bruises and marks were seen at various points on his body. It was decided to admit J to hospital for examination and assessment on 2 July.
On 1 July, however, J was admitted to hospital with a range of injuries, including bruises to his forehead, face, ear, chest, abdomen and legs, bite marks at various points on his body, burns on his calf and thigh and deep lacerations to his penis and scrotum. According to the mother and KF, the mother had gone out on the evening of 30 June leaving J in KF's care, together with KF's child. According to KF, during the night he noticed blood coming from J's nappy and on removing it found that he had sustained cuts to his penis and scrotum. On examining the nappy, he discovered several pieces of glass.
Following this admission to hospital, the mother and KF were arrested on suspicion of inflicting grievous bodily harm. At the time of his arrest, KF was in possession of heroin and a knife. Both adults were interviewed and denied responsibility for the injuries. T was admitted to hospital for medical examination. Both boys were made subject of emergency protection orders.
After J's admission to hospital, a blood-soaked nappy, said by KF to be the one J had been wearing when the injuries were discovered, was handed in by the mother. The nappy contained several pieces of glass. In the course of the police investigation, further shards of glass were discovered in the garden of the family home which matched those in the nappy.
On 2 July, the local authority started care proceedings in respect of the boys and two days later they were made subject of interim care orders and placed in separate foster placements. There followed a long series of case management hearings in which directions were given for the filing of evidence, including expert medical evidence by a number of specialists. Amongst the experts instructed were two odontologists, Dr Kouble, who had originally been instructed by the police in the course of their investigation, and Dr Crewe, who was instructed jointly by the parties to the care proceedings. Both of the boys' fathers were joined as respondents to the proceedings and KF was joined as an intervenor.
Meanwhile, following completion of the police investigation, the mother and KF were charged with four offences relating to the injuries sustained by J, namely two offences of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent (one relating to the cumulative injuries sustained between 29 May and 1 July, excluding the genital injuries, the other to the genital injuries and facial bruising sustained between 29 June and 1 July), one offence of sexual assault on a child under 13 (relating to the injuries to J's penis and scrotum), and one offence of allowing serious physical harm to a child. The mother was also charged with an offence of cruelty.
A fact-finding hearing in the care proceedings, which had been adjourned on a number of occasions, finally took place in June 2019 before HH Judge Vavrecka. The mother, who has some cognitive difficulties, was assisted by an intermediary at the hearing. The findings sought by the local authority were that J had sustained a series of non-accidental injuries between 30 May and 1 July 2020 which been inflicted by the mother and/or KF. The mother and KF each denied responsibility for any of the injuries. In addition, the mother sought findings of domestic abuse against both of the boys' fathers. Both men denied those allegations.
At the hearing, the judge heard oral evidence from a number of witnesses, including several medical experts and from the mother. When KF went into the witness box, he was given a warning in accordance with s.98 of the Children Act. He then refused to answer any questions, saying that this was on the advice of his criminal legal representatives. The judge therefore heard no oral evidence from KF, although he had written evidence from him in the form of statements and transcripts of police interviews. In his statements, KF described the events of the evening of 30 June to 1 July 2018 when, while looking after the children on his own, he had noticed J bleeding in his genital area and found pieces of glass in his nappy. Following the conclusion of the evidence and submissions, judgment was reserved.
On 2 August 2019, the judge handed down what he described as an “executive summary” setting out his findings, with reasons to follow in a full judgment to be delivered at a later date. In summary, the findings set out in that document were as follows:
(1) J sustained injuries seen on five dates between 31 May and 1 July 2018, all of which were inflicted.
(2) The marks seen on 22 June occurred when J was in the mother's sole care and she was the likely perpetrator.
(3) The multiple bruises on J's forehead, face and ears seen on 1 July were likely to have been caused by a pinch or blow. The mother and KF had the opportunity to cause these injuries and there was a likelihood or real possibility that either of them caused these injuries.
(4) Many of the bite marks found on J's body were most likely to have been inflicted by T, save those under the armpit, which on a balance of probabilities were inflicted by the mother. KF was excluded as having caused any bite marks.
(5) The cuts to the scrotum and penis were caused by a sharp implement, possibly the glass found in the nappy. Neither the mother's nor KF's account probably accounts for the cuts. The judge did not know how the cuts had been made but they were clearly caused by a sharp implement. If they were caused by glass in the nappy, somebody must have put the glass there. This had happened when J was in the care of his mother and KF. Either of them was the likely perpetrator of the penis and scrotum injuries.
(6) The bite marks identified as caused by T reflected a failure by the mother to supervise the children properly. The mother had failed to protect J from the other injuries. Her actions on 1 July amounted to a failure to seek prompt medical attention for J.
(7) Several marks on the body had been caused by a shoe, likely to be the mother's “flip-flop”.
(8) With regard to the allegations against the boys' fathers, the mother's evidence entirely lacked credibility and, whilst there clearly was volatility in the relationships, the totality of the evidence did not satisfy the court on a balance of probabilities in respect of any of her allegations.
At the beginning of October 2019, the criminal trial started. On 10 October, Judge Vavrecka handed down what he described as a “partial judgment”, indicating that his final judgment would be available shortly.
On 17 October, the criminal trial concluded with the jury returning verdicts convicting KF of both counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm and the count of sexual assault, acquitting the mother of those three charges and of the fourth charge, but convicting her of the charge of cruelty. The mother's solicitor promptly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
P (Children)(Disclosure)
...court to do so. He referred to R v. IRC and Another, ex p. TC Coombs and Co. [1991] 2 AC 283, a decision cited in In re T (Children) [2020] EWCA Civ 1344; [2021] 4 WLR 25. However, this appeal does not concern the drawing of adverse inferences because the underlying proceedings have not r......
-
R v G (disclosure of fact-finding judgment to SSHD)
...Council[2020] EWCA Civ 731, [2020] Fam 411, [2020] 3 FCR 503, [2020] 3 WLR 742, [2021] 1 All ER 396, [2020] 2 FLR 987. T (children), Re[2020] EWCA Civ 1344, [2021] 1 FCR 189, [2021] 4 WLR 25, [2021] 1 FLR VR v YD[2021] EWHC 2642 (Fam) (29 September 2021, unreported). W (children), Re[2017] ......
-
C (A Child) (Fact-Finding)
...690 at paragraph 30, in a passage approved by this Court recently in Re T and J (children); A mother v A Local Authority and others [2020] EWCA Civ 1344, Lord Lowry's observation does “no more than describe and illustrate the very broad discretion of the court to draw adverse inferences, w......
-
H-M (Children)
...2020 by McCombe LJ, Baker LJ and Roberts J. It was dismissed, with Baker LJ giving the substantive judgment: see T and J (Children) [2020] EWCA Civ 1344; [2021] 4 WLR 25. The mother then renewed her application to reopen the findings of fact on the basis of new evidence, and that applicati......